'Modest Encroachments on Privacy'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point.

Edit: I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

[/quote]

What if some rogue unit fires on a few Americans and then those Americans and their cohorts mount an attack on the base the attacking soldiers came from or are stationed on? How would other soldiers then respond?[/quote]

This whole line of conversation was pretty far fetched to begin with, and we’re just continuing to get farther afield.

102

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point.

Edit: I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

[/quote]

What if some rogue unit fires on a few Americans and then those Americans and their cohorts mount an attack on the base the attacking soldiers came from or are stationed on? How would other soldiers then respond?[/quote]

This whole line of conversation was pretty far fetched to begin with, and we’re just continuing to get farther afield. [/quote]

Half this forum is more far-fetched than this line of conversation. It’s better than being near-fetched.

103

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
DB, in most cases I think you know what your talking about. This, however, isn’t one of them.

If the country split into various faction and a civil war broke out the yes, Americans would kill Americans. If President Obama ordered U.S. Marines to fire on civilians, today, it would not happen, period.

Like I said 98/100 service members would disobey any order to attack American civilians. [/quote]

Would 98/100 service members disobey an order to attack American civilians who are suspected of a terrorist plot, and who the government decides need to be preemptively dealt with by the military?

Are you just making the point that there are only approximately 53,000 people currently serving in the U.S. military who would be willing to kill innocent American civilians if ordered to do so?

*I know I haven’t been involved in this thread until now. I just happened to read through some of it and wanted clarification on the above.[/quote]

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians. No I did not multiple the # of active serivce members by 2%. the % was to prove a point.

Edit: I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

[/quote]

What if some rogue unit fires on a few Americans and then those Americans and their cohorts mount an attack on the base the attacking soldiers came from or are stationed on? How would other soldiers then respond?[/quote]

This whole line of conversation was pretty far fetched to begin with, and we’re just continuing to get farther afield. [/quote]

Half this forum is more far-fetched than this line of conversation. It’s better than being near-fetched.[/quote]

I suppose you make an excellent point.

104

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What if some rogue unit fires on a few Americans and then those Americans and their cohorts mount an attack on the base the attacking soldiers came from or are stationed on? How would other soldiers then respond?[/quote]

Are we talking about now or during a civil war?

Now: The Soldiers would punish under the UCMJ. The Americans would be punished under state and federal law. Most soldiers would not condone the actions of the rogue unit. We serve the people; most of us take that pretty service.

“To support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Civil War: The better trained, equipped, and determined party will win. Soldiers will do as their told in order to survive/their faction to win.

Also if a civilian aims a weapon at a soldier, they aren’t really a civilian anymore.

105

I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.

106

[quote]four60 wrote:
I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.[/quote]

Well, most training occurs on U.S. soil, so…

107

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.[/quote]

Well, most training occurs on U.S. soil, so…[/quote]

Against a vague landscape. Not, U.S. Towns and cities as targets

108

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.[/quote]

Well, most training occurs on U.S. soil, so…[/quote]

Against a vague landscape. Not, U.S. Towns and cities as targets[/quote]

True, but even in basic we spent time clearing window & doors on a pretty standard house. Training is also done all over the country on all kinds of terrain. I don’t think adapting to a specific area in the U.S. would be that hard.

109

http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/78410/marines-raid-training-town-in-camp-lejeune.aspx

There’s pic or two in here showing the training.

110

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.[/quote]

Well, most training occurs on U.S. soil, so…[/quote]

Against a vague landscape. Not, U.S. Towns and cities as targets[/quote]

True, but even in basic we spent time clearing window & doors on a pretty standard house. Training is also done all over the country on all kinds of terrain. I don’t think adapting to a specific area in the U.S. would be that hard. [/quote]

It’s not the terrain so much as the idea of turning Down Jefferson ave and firing on the Golds gym next to Peace Baptist church is what the average soldier will have pause for.

111

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
I wonder how trained our military is on fighting on U.S. turf? And if that type of training is going on then I’m really worried.[/quote]

Well, most training occurs on U.S. soil, so…[/quote]

Against a vague landscape. Not, U.S. Towns and cities as targets[/quote]

True, but even in basic we spent time clearing window & doors on a pretty standard house. Training is also done all over the country on all kinds of terrain. I don’t think adapting to a specific area in the U.S. would be that hard. [/quote]

It’s not the terrain so much as the idea of turning Down Jefferson ave and firing on the Golds gym next to Peace Baptist church is what the average soldier will have pause for.[/quote]

I agree with that.

112

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

My point is that the majority or service members would disobey a direct order if it mean’t killing American civilians.

I suppose troops could be deceived to fire on, “suspected terrorists,” but we are talking about a few people at a time. It’s not like a Major is gonna be like, “Devil Dogs all of Boston has become a haven for terrorists. Shoot everyone on sight.” Even then, most wouldn’t because we don’t shoot women or children unless they are direct threats (point a gun at our face). Even then most still would try and avoid killing them especially if it’s a kid.

[/quote]

I think most soldiers (and even a few Marines) will just follow their orders.

And if they don’t, there are plenty of NATO troops and mercenaries … er, I mean contractors, who would have fewer qualms at getting the job done. The Gauls, the Gurkhas, the Hessians and the Zouaves are only a few examples of how this method has been used in the past.

At very least, a smart commander would simply send in a company of infantrymen who are a different race or religion than the civilian population they are facing. Would a platoon made up predominantly of Korean soldiers, for example, have serious qualms about shooting black civilians? Would a platoon of black soldiers have a big problem shooting up Crackertown, or a platoon of white Arizonans lose any sleep shooting up the barrio? How about a platoon of ardent Christian Soldiers shooting at Muslim civilians in Detroit? How far-fetched does that sound?

Yes, I’m playing to ethnic and cultural stereotypes here, but you’d be hard pressed to claim that this has never happened before, and couldn’t happen again. It’s hard to imagine All-American Johnny come marching home and shooting Mom as she’s baking her apple pie, but it’s foolish to think that the words “divide and conquer” are any less applicable now than they have always been.

113

American soldiers stand by as American civilians are sent o camp.

One significant difference between the American civilians and German civilians herded into camps by their respective governments in the 1940s is obviously, most of the American civilians made it out of those camps after the war. The Germans (along with the Poles, Czechs, et al.), not so much.

But one conspicuous similarity is that for the most part, neither group fought back. They just bowed their heads and went where the tough-looking soldiers told them to.

But what if they HAD fought back? What if the first soldier to knock on the door of Mr. Tanaka’s house in Pasadena, or Herr Rosenkrantz’ house in Dusseldorf, had got a bullet in his brain? In Germany, I imagine the outcome may have been different. Maybe the timetable for the Final Solution would have been moved up, or maybe a solid resistance could have developed before it got to the point of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen.

In this country? I think any resistance at all to the internment process would have been met with devastating force. As in, Wounded Knee in California.

Oh, and speaking of Wounded Knee, that reminds me of one more thing that the Japanese in America, the Jews in Germany, and the Sioux in North Dakota had in common: the civilians in every case were required to do one simple thing before being brutalized by their governments.

They were required to give up their guns.

114

Hot damn Varq have I missed your posts in here!

That was far better said than most things I could come up with in any case. Even though I’m not quite as certain as you, this is a damned good point you make.

116

Varqanir

Like I conceded earlier, there would be a certain % that would still follow orders. It’s my contention that they would be significantly outnumbered by those that would reject an unethical order like firing on U.S. citizens.

Times have significantly changes between 1940 and 2013. Maybe if you can find a platoon that happens to be 100% Muslim (slim chance) you might get what you’re talking about, but a platoon of whites firing on blacks, Hispanics firing on whites, etc…(Unlikely anyway because the military is more a melting pot than even America in general) is unlikely to happen.

I just don’t believe it will happen unless civil war breaks out.